On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:19:36PM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But there's not much value in benchmarking if an important part of the
> > performance critical code is in some undebuggable driver...
>
> In this case we don't care about the
On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But there's not much value in benchmarking if an important part of the
> performance critical code is in some undebuggable driver...
In this case we don't care about the performance of the video driver.
This isn't a race to see who can get the
On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there's not much value in benchmarking if an important part of the
performance critical code is in some undebuggable driver...
In this case we don't care about the performance of the video driver.
This isn't a race to see who can get the most
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 04:19:36PM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there's not much value in benchmarking if an important part of the
performance critical code is in some undebuggable driver...
In this case we don't care about the
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:07:30PM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
>...
> I took the time to track down what caused a breakage - in an "illegal
> binary driver" (not against the law here, though defamation certainly
> is...) no less. And contacted the vendor (separately). Other people
> on desktop
On 8/1/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you tryied the 2 modes of the patch?
Here's my stats for sched_yield_ctl = 2
loops fps
0 48
1 48
2 48
3 48
4 39
5 39
6 39
7 28
8 28
9 22
10 18
Once again it was very
* Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the newly-tested kernel (-ck+sched_yield_hack) it was 4-5 seconds
> for initial load, same as CFS normally does for me. I think the 8
> second one was because I got in quick and the system was still running
> some startup crap (so I blame
* Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > this is what CFS does:
> >
> > static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p);
> > u64 now = __rq_clock(rq);
> >
> > /*
> >*
Em Terça, 31 de Julho de 2007 16:57, Matthew Hawkins escreveu:
> On 7/31/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers) as
> > until 2.6.22 and -ck. Please try this hack [1] that makes -ck to behave
> > like CFS then you
On 8/1/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only other thing of interest is that the -ck kernel had the WM
> > menus appear in about 3 seconds rather than 5-8 under the other two.
>
> under what load is that - 10 loops? There's no disk or network IO going
> on during a WM menu
On 7/31/07, Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers) as until
> 2.6.22 and -ck. Please try this hack [1] that makes -ck to behave like CFS
> then you are comparing apples to apples.
Hi Miguel,
I tested with
* Matthew Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while
> > > SD broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated
> > >
* Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers)
> as until 2.6.22 and -ck. [...]
as i pointed it out to you it does, the function's name changed:
/*
* sched_yield() support is very simple - we dequeue and enqueue
*/
Em Terça, 31 de Julho de 2007 14:16, Matthew Hawkins escreveu:
> On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD
> > > broke down to a highly unstable fps count that
On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD
> > broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated massively
> > around the third loop. Seems like I will stick to CFS
Matthew, odd off. ait binary crap is totally offtopic here on the list,
and beeing prude for beeing a fuckhead and holding development back doesn't
exactly helpe either. Go back to your -ck fanboy land and shut up now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
* Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright, Just got done with some testing of UT2004 between 2.6.23-rc1
> CFS and 2.6.22-ck1 SD. This series of tests was run by spawning in a
> map while not moving at all and always facing the same direction,
> while slowing increasing the number
* kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to get kernel 2.6.22-ck and 2.6.23-rc1 work to test the new
> cfs scheduler, but I get broken system. Networking is totally broken
> (cannot find module for my marvell yukon gigabit ethernet in kconfig),
> firewall / routing doesn't work (a
* kriko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to get kernel 2.6.22-ck and 2.6.23-rc1 work to test the new
cfs scheduler, but I get broken system. Networking is totally broken
(cannot find module for my marvell yukon gigabit ethernet in kconfig),
firewall / routing doesn't work (a bunch of
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alright, Just got done with some testing of UT2004 between 2.6.23-rc1
CFS and 2.6.22-ck1 SD. This series of tests was run by spawning in a
map while not moving at all and always facing the same direction,
while slowing increasing the number of
Matthew, odd off. ait binary crap is totally offtopic here on the list,
and beeing prude for beeing a fuckhead and holding development back doesn't
exactly helpe either. Go back to your -ck fanboy land and shut up now.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD
broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated massively
around the third loop. Seems like I will stick to CFS for gaming
Em Terça, 31 de Julho de 2007 14:16, Matthew Hawkins escreveu:
On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while SD
broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated massively
* Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers)
as until 2.6.22 and -ck. [...]
as i pointed it out to you it does, the function's name changed:
/*
* sched_yield() support is very simple - we dequeue and enqueue
*/
* Matthew Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/31/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFS generally seemed a lot smoother as the load increased, while
SD broke down to a highly unstable fps count that fluctuated
massively around the
On 7/31/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers) as until
2.6.22 and -ck. Please try this hack [1] that makes -ck to behave like CFS
then you are comparing apples to apples.
Hi Miguel,
I tested with sched_yield_ctl set
On 8/1/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only other thing of interest is that the -ck kernel had the WM
menus appear in about 3 seconds rather than 5-8 under the other two.
under what load is that - 10 loops? There's no disk or network IO going
on during a WM menu appearance,
Em Terça, 31 de Julho de 2007 16:57, Matthew Hawkins escreveu:
On 7/31/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CFS does not requeue_task() on SCHED_YIELD (used by graphic drivers) as
until 2.6.22 and -ck. Please try this hack [1] that makes -ck to behave
like CFS then you are
* Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
this is what CFS does:
static void yield_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
{
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p);
u64 now = __rq_clock(rq);
/*
* Dequeue and enqueue the
* Matthew Hawkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For the newly-tested kernel (-ck+sched_yield_hack) it was 4-5 seconds
for initial load, same as CFS normally does for me. I think the 8
second one was because I got in quick and the system was still running
some startup crap (so I blame disk i/o
On 8/1/07, Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you tryied the 2 modes of the patch?
Here's my stats for sched_yield_ctl = 2
loops fps
0 48
1 48
2 48
3 48
4 39
5 39
6 39
7 28
8 28
9 22
10 18
Once again it was very
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 01:07:30PM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
...
I took the time to track down what caused a breakage - in an illegal
binary driver (not against the law here, though defamation certainly
is...) no less. And contacted the vendor (separately). Other people
on desktop
On 7/31/07, Roland Dreier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Fuck you Martin!
>
> I think you meant to yell at Matthew, not Martin ;)
What's amusing about this is he's yelling at me for something I didn't
do, can't even get my name right, and has the audacity to claim that
*I* am the one
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
> Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu:
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
> >> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:53:41PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
> >Fuck you Martin!
>
> I think you meant to yell at Matthew, not Martin ;)
Yes, of course :) Also thanks to all the people pointing that out
in private.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel"
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>
>> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
>> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
>> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 19:38, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> * Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > in mainline (2.6.22):
> > /**
> > * sys_sched_yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
> > *
> > * This function yields the current CPU by moving the calling thread
> >
* Kenneth Prugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
>
> Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
> copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
> anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it
> and try.
>
>
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ah, you mean Kasper Sandberg's report? That turned out to be based
> > on an older CFS version, not v2.6.23-rc1. Kasper said he'll redo his
> > tests, and if there's still any regression left we'll fix it.
>
> probably. I delete lkml messages
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Would you be interested in trying CFS and doing some numers perhaps?
It requires some work: you have to start up your favorite game in a
way that gives a reliable framerate number. (many games allow the
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would you be interested in trying CFS and doing some numers perhaps?
> > It requires some work: you have to start up your favorite game in a
> > way that gives a reliable framerate number. (many games allow the
> > display of FPS in-game) In
* Miguel Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> in mainline (2.6.22):
> /**
> * sys_sched_yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
> *
> * This function yields the current CPU by moving the calling thread
> * to the expired array. If there are no other threads running on this
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:25:47AM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
>
> The ATI drivers (current 8.39.4) were broken by
> commit e21ea246bce5bb93dd822de420172ec280aed492
> Author: Martin Schwidefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Bad call on the "nobody was using these", Martin :(
Sorry to use foul
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my copy
of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have anything else
that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it and try.
The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should be using
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > >
> As for breaking binary crap, thats a bonus. Break them hard, break them
> often.
>
I think there's a big difference in philosophy between "break binary
drivers if you want to make a legitimate change for whatever reason" and
"break binary drivers just to be a pain in the ass to the
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
Do we care ? The code should be replaced with ptep_get_and_clear +
pte_modify anyway..
Since the general direction of this thread was for people to test 3D
game performance with the shiny new CFS cpu scheduler, I would say yes,
we do care if people with the only
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > >
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > >
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 12:46, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
> * John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > * John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Ingo-
> > > >
> > > > Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
> > > >
On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/30/07, kriko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
> > doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
> > http://files.myopera.com/kriko/files/nvidia-installer.log
> >
> >
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ingo-
Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
compare numbers to wine? [...]
I regularly test native
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > * John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Ingo-
> > >
> > > Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
> > > compare numbers to wine? [...]
> >
> > I regularly test native
* John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo-
Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
compare numbers to wine? [...]
I regularly test native Linux games on CFS, and they
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo-
Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
compare numbers to wine? [...]
I regularly test native Linux
On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/07, kriko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
http://files.myopera.com/kriko/files/nvidia-installer.log
If someone has
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 12:46, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
* John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/29/07, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo-
Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
compare numbers to wine? [...]
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/07, kriko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/07, kriko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
Do we care ? The code should be replaced with ptep_get_and_clear +
pte_modify anyway..
Since the general direction of this thread was for people to test 3D
game performance with the shiny new CFS cpu scheduler, I would say yes,
we do care if people with the only
As for breaking binary crap, thats a bonus. Break them hard, break them
often.
I think there's a big difference in philosophy between break binary
drivers if you want to make a legitimate change for whatever reason and
break binary drivers just to be a pain in the ass to the developers and
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 02:25 +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
On 7/31/07, Jacob Braun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/30/07, kriko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would try the new cfs how it performs, but it seems that nvidia drivers
doesn't compile successfully under 2.6.23-rc1.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
large snip
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my copy
of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have anything else
that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it and try.
The only problem is I don't know what 2 kernels I should
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 02:25:47AM +1000, Matthew Hawkins wrote:
The ATI drivers (current 8.39.4) were broken by
commit e21ea246bce5bb93dd822de420172ec280aed492
Author: Martin Schwidefsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bad call on the nobody was using these, Martin :(
Sorry to use foul language once
* Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in mainline (2.6.22):
/**
* sys_sched_yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
*
* This function yields the current CPU by moving the calling thread
* to the expired array. If there are no other threads running on this
* CPU
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you be interested in trying CFS and doing some numers perhaps?
It requires some work: you have to start up your favorite game in a
way that gives a reliable framerate number. (many games allow the
display of FPS in-game) In Quake3 i
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would you be interested in trying CFS and doing some numers perhaps?
It requires some work: you have to start up your favorite game in a
way that gives a reliable framerate number. (many games allow the
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ah, you mean Kasper Sandberg's report? That turned out to be based
on an older CFS version, not v2.6.23-rc1. Kasper said he'll redo his
tests, and if there's still any regression left we'll fix it.
probably. I delete lkml messages pretty
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
large snip
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab it
and try.
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 19:38, Ingo Molnar escreveu:
* Miguel Figueiredo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in mainline (2.6.22):
/**
* sys_sched_yield - yield the current processor to other threads.
*
* This function yields the current CPU by moving the calling thread
* to the
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:53:41PM -0700, Roland Dreier wrote:
Fuck you Martin!
I think you meant to yell at Matthew, not Martin ;)
Yes, of course :) Also thanks to all the people pointing that out
in private.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
large snip
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
anything else that would better serve as a benchmark I could grab
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
large snip
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO card). Or if you have
Miguel Figueiredo wrote:
Em Segunda, 30 de Julho de 2007 22:24, Kenneth Prugh escreveu:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Kenneth Prugh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
large snip
Hello, I have a gaming rig and would love to help benchmark with my
copy of UT2004(E6600 Core2 and a 7950GTO
On 7/31/07, Roland Dreier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fuck you Martin!
I think you meant to yell at Matthew, not Martin ;)
What's amusing about this is he's yelling at me for something I didn't
do, can't even get my name right, and has the audacity to claim that
*I* am the one looking like
On 7/30/07, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I understand that, I was just wondering if the FPS scales the same natively
> vs. Wine as I typically only run native games. I have been hesitant to move
> over to CFS due to reports of 3D issues and wanted to see if you had numbers
> in regards to
* John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo-
>
> Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
> compare numbers to wine? [...]
I regularly test native Linux games on CFS, and they all behave well.
While waiting for more detailed data from Kasper i was looking for
atypical
* John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingo-
Why not perform the same test using the native linux Q3 client to
compare numbers to wine? [...]
I regularly test native Linux games on CFS, and they all behave well.
While waiting for more detailed data from Kasper i was looking for
atypical stuff
On 7/30/07, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand that, I was just wondering if the FPS scales the same natively
vs. Wine as I typically only run native games. I have been hesitant to move
over to CFS due to reports of 3D issues and wanted to see if you had numbers
in regards to CFS vs.
80 matches
Mail list logo
